pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2510.13990 · v2 · submitted 2025-10-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

The Nephele ecosystem: stars, globular clusters, and stellar streams associated with the progenitor galaxy of ω Centauri

G. Pagnini , P. Di Matteo , M. Haywood , P. Bianchini , S. Ferrone , A. Mastrobuono-Battisti , O. Agertz , S. Khoperskov
show 2 more authors
F. Renaud N. Ryde
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 06:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords ω Centauristellar streamsglobular clustersMilky Way accretionchemical abundanceskinematicsAPOGEEtidal debris
0
0 comments X

The pith

Chemical and kinematic matches in APOGEE data link hundreds of field stars to ω Centauri and five associated globular clusters, supporting a shared disrupted dwarf galaxy progenitor.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper aims to trace debris from the progenitor galaxy of ω Centauri by first identifying stars with matching chemical abundances in APOGEE DR17 and then checking which of those stars follow the orbital paths expected for tidal streams from ω Centauri and a candidate family of globular clusters. Researchers use an eight-dimensional Gaussian mixture model on abundances to select chemically compatible stars, then apply a second mixture model on energy and angular momentum that has been calibrated against e-TidalGCs simulations to test stream membership. The work finds 470 chemically matching stars, including some with second-generation abundance patterns, and several that are kinematically consistent with the predicted streams. A reader would care because these relics help map how the inner Milky Way assembled through past mergers that are now hard to recognize amid disk stars and limited sky coverage.

Core claim

Analysis of APOGEE DR17 abundances identifies 470 field stars chemically compatible with ω Centauri, of which 58 are aluminum-rich like second-generation globular cluster stars. Orbital calculations and a simulation-calibrated Gaussian mixture model then show that six of these stars are kinematically consistent with the predicted ω Centauri stream, while additional stars align with the tidal streams of NGC 6205, NGC 6254, NGC 6273, NGC 6656, and NGC 6809. Chemical and kinematic properties also overlap with the Gaia Sausage-Enceladus population. These results indicate stellar debris associated with ω Centauri and its candidate globular cluster family, consistent with a shared, now-disrupted g

What carries the argument

Two-stage Gaussian mixture modeling: first in eight-dimensional chemical abundance space to select stars matching ω Centauri, then in orbital energy and angular momentum space using parameters calibrated on e-TidalGCs simulations to assign membership to predicted tidal streams.

If this is right

  • The globular clusters NGC 6205, NGC 6254, NGC 6273, NGC 6656, and NGC 6809 belong to the same accretion event as ω Centauri.
  • Chemical-kinematic selection can recover accretion relics even in the inner Galaxy where disk contamination is high.
  • Some of the identified stars may represent second-generation material from the original globular clusters that have been stripped into the field.
  • Overlap with the Gaia Sausage-Enceladus population suggests possible mixing or shared history between different accretion events.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The progenitor galaxy was likely a dwarf system whose nucleus survived as ω Centauri while its outer stars and clusters were dispersed into the inner halo.
  • Similar two-stage chemical-plus-kinematic searches could be applied to other massive globular clusters suspected of having ex-situ origins to build a more complete merger inventory of the Milky Way.
  • Larger samples from future surveys would allow statistical estimates of the progenitor's stellar mass and the fraction of inner-halo stars it contributed.

Load-bearing premise

The second Gaussian mixture model correctly assigns kinematic membership to the Nephele streams without major biases from the assumed Galactic potential, simulation resolution, or unmodeled disk contamination.

What would settle it

A wide-area spectroscopic survey that finds zero stars with both ω Centauri-like abundances and orbital parameters matching the simulated streams of ω Centauri or the five listed clusters would falsify the claimed links.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.13990 by A. Mastrobuono-Battisti, F. Renaud, G. Pagnini, M. Haywood, N. Ryde, O. Agertz, P. Bianchini, P. Di Matteo, S. Ferrone, S. Khoperskov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left panel: Probability distribution of all stars in our sample which have a not null probability to be chemically compatible with ω Cen, according to the GMMChem model. Middle panel: [Fe/H] distribution of all stars with a probability P > 0 (grey), P ≥ 0.7 (magenta), and P ≥ 0.99 (yellow) to be chemically compatible with ω Cen (black). Right panel: Distribution in the [Mg/Fe]-[Fe/H] plane of ω Centauri st… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Chemical abundance relations for ω Cen members and APOGEE DR17 field stars. Filled black and coloured symbols represent respectively the ω Cen reference sample and the subset of field stars identified as chemically compatible with it by GMMChem. Outliers, defined as stars with a probability density below the 10th percentile threshold, are shown as empty black circles for ω Cen and as contours for field sta… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distribution of Nephele candidates (magenta) and golden sample (golden) in kinematic spaces: orbital energy (E) versus the z-component of the angular momentum (Lz). Al-rich sub￾samples (see definition in Eq. 1) are shown as star symbols. For comparison, the distribution of all APOGEE stars is shown as grey points. distribution of these stars is clearly influenced by the APOGEE footprint. However, it is int… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Nephele’s distribution in the sky. Nephele candidate stars (magenta symbols), its golden sample (golden symbols), ω Cen￾tauri and its family of globular clusters as identified in Pagnini et al. (2025) (colour-coded circles), and their likely stream stars (colour-coded symbols) are shown together with all APOGEE stars (grey points). events, such as GSE, Heracles, Helmi Stream and Thamnos (see our [PITH_FUL… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Metallicity distribution functions (MDFs) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison with stars in Anguiano et al. (2025) (A25). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Globular clusters (GCs) and their associated stellar streams are key tracers of the hierarchical assembly history of the Milky Way. $\omega$ Centauri, the most massive and chemically complex GC in the Galaxy, is widely believed to be the remnant nucleus of an accreted dwarf galaxy. Identifying its associated debris and that of chemically similar clusters can provide important constraints on the nature of this progenitor system. We aim to identify field stars that are chemically and kinematically linked to $\omega$ Cen and to a group of globular clusters associated with the Nephele accretion event. We analyse APOGEE DR17 data using a Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM) in a 8-dimensional chemical space to identify field stars whose abundances match those of $\omega$ Cen. We then compute the orbital energy and angular momentum of these stars and apply a second GMM, calibrated on simulations from the e-TidalGCs project, to determine kinematic compatibility with the predicted streams of $\omega$ Cen and the associated Nephele GCs. We identify 470 stars chemically compatible with $\omega$ Cen, of which 58 are also Al-rich, consistent with second-generation stars found in GCs. Of these, 6 stars show kinematics consistent with the predicted $\omega$ Cen stream, and additional stars are linked to the tidal streams of NGC 6205, NGC 6254, NGC 6273, NGC 6656, and NGC 6809. We also find overlap in chemical and kinematic properties between Nephele stars and the Gaia Sausage-Enceladus population. Our findings indicate stellar debris linked to $\omega$ Cen and its candidate globular cluster family, consistent with a shared, now-disrupted galactic progenitor. Despite residual uncertainties from disc contamination and limited sky coverage, the results demonstrate the effectiveness of combined chemical and dynamical analyses in uncovering relics of past accretion events in the inner Galaxy.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper applies an 8-dimensional GMM to APOGEE DR17 abundances to select 470 field stars chemically compatible with ω Cen (58 of them Al-rich), then integrates orbits in a fixed Galactic potential and applies a second GMM trained on e-TidalGCs simulations to assign kinematic membership in (E, Lz) space. It reports 6 stars consistent with the predicted ω Cen stream plus additional members linked to the tidal streams of NGC 6205, NGC 6254, NGC 6273, NGC 6656 and NGC 6809, and notes chemical-kinematic overlap with the Gaia Sausage-Enceladus population, concluding that these stars represent debris from a shared, now-disrupted progenitor galaxy.

Significance. If the membership assignments hold, the work supplies concrete observational support for the hypothesis that ω Cen and a set of chemically similar globular clusters originated in the same accreted dwarf galaxy. By combining public APOGEE chemistry with externally calibrated dynamical simulations it illustrates a practical route for identifying low-contrast stellar streams in the inner Galaxy and for testing the Nephele accretion scenario.

major comments (2)
  1. [Kinematic membership section] The kinematic GMM (described after the chemical selection) is calibrated on a single set of e-TidalGCs simulations integrated in one assumed potential; no tests are reported against alternative potentials (e.g., McMillan 2017 versus Bovy 2015) or against simulations that include a live disk. Because the 6-star ω Cen stream assignment and the additional Nephele GC links rest directly on the GMM decision boundaries in (E, Lz), unquantified sensitivity to these choices constitutes a load-bearing uncertainty for the central claim.
  2. [Results (star counts and membership)] The manuscript states the numbers 470 and 6 without supplying the GMM component-selection criterion, the adopted number of components, uncertainty propagation, or any cross-validation or contamination-injection tests. These omissions make it impossible to judge whether the reported counts are robust against disk-star leakage or against the limited phase-space coverage of the training simulations.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract mentions 'residual uncertainties from disc contamination and limited sky coverage' but does not quantify their expected effect on the final membership lists.
  2. [Methods] Notation for the orbital integrals (E, Lz) and for the chemical abundance axes used in the first GMM should be defined explicitly on first use to aid readers outside the APOGEE community.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating where revisions will be made to improve the robustness and transparency of the analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Kinematic membership section] The kinematic GMM (described after the chemical selection) is calibrated on a single set of e-TidalGCs simulations integrated in one assumed potential; no tests are reported against alternative potentials (e.g., McMillan 2017 versus Bovy 2015) or against simulations that include a live disk. Because the 6-star ω Cen stream assignment and the additional Nephele GC links rest directly on the GMM decision boundaries in (E, Lz), unquantified sensitivity to these choices constitutes a load-bearing uncertainty for the central claim.

    Authors: We agree that the dependence of the kinematic membership on the assumed Galactic potential represents an important uncertainty that should be quantified. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph (and, if space permits, a supplementary figure) comparing the (E, Lz) distributions and resulting GMM assignments obtained with the Bovy (2015) potential in addition to the fiducial potential used in the original analysis. We will report the overlap fraction for the six ω Cen stream candidates and the other Nephele-linked stars under both potentials. Regarding live-disk simulations, no such public e-TidalGCs runs exist, and generating new N-body models with a responsive disk is computationally prohibitive within the scope of this work. We will therefore add an explicit caveat stating this limitation while noting that the dominant orbital features of the streams remain qualitatively consistent across standard static potentials. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results (star counts and membership)] The manuscript states the numbers 470 and 6 without supplying the GMM component-selection criterion, the adopted number of components, uncertainty propagation, or any cross-validation or contamination-injection tests. These omissions make it impossible to judge whether the reported counts are robust against disk-star leakage or against the limited phase-space coverage of the training simulations.

    Authors: We accept that the current presentation lacks sufficient methodological detail for independent assessment of the reported counts. In the revised version we will expand the Methods section to specify: (i) the exact number of Gaussian components retained for both the 8D chemical GMM and the kinematic GMM, (ii) the model-selection criterion (BIC) and its values, (iii) how membership probabilities were converted to counts, and (iv) the results of a contamination-injection test in which mock disk stars drawn from a Besançon-like model were added to the APOGEE sample. We will also report the standard deviation of the recovered counts across 100 bootstrap resamples of the training simulations to quantify uncertainty arising from limited phase-space coverage. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on external data and simulations

full rationale

The paper applies a first GMM to public APOGEE DR17 abundances in 8D chemical space to select stars matching ω Cen, then integrates orbits in an assumed potential and applies a second GMM whose decision boundaries are calibrated on the independent e-TidalGCs simulation suite. No equation or fitted parameter is defined in terms of the final membership assignments and then re-used as a prediction; the reported 6 stars and additional GC-linked members follow directly from the input catalog and external calibration without self-definition, renaming of known results, or load-bearing self-citations that collapse the chain. The analysis is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and falsifiable by alternative potentials or higher-resolution runs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis depends on the fidelity of APOGEE abundance measurements and the accuracy of tidal-stream predictions from the e-TidalGCs simulations; no new physical entities are postulated.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption APOGEE DR17 chemical abundances are free of large systematic offsets that would mix unrelated stellar populations.
    The chemical GMM separation assumes the survey data faithfully represent true abundance patterns.
  • domain assumption The e-TidalGCs simulations provide an unbiased representation of the orbital distribution of Nephele progenitor debris in the adopted Milky Way potential.
    The kinematic GMM is calibrated directly on these simulations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5934 in / 1512 out tokens · 64704 ms · 2026-05-18T06:44:02.802972+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. The Last Galactic Firework: Timing the last significant merger with stars, globular clusters and $\omega$Centauri

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    The Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus merger occurred 11.2 ± 0.1 Gyr ago, coinciding with the formation of a group of globular clusters and potentially leaving ω Centauri as its remnant, while placing disk formation at z ≳ 4.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 106 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 35

    Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    & Santillan, A

    Allen, C. & Santillan, A. 1991, Rev. Mexicana Astron. Astrofis., 22, 255

    work page 1991

  3. [3]

    W., Kirihara, T., et al

    Anguiano, B., Mitschang, A. W., Kirihara, T., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 12

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    & Hilker, M

    Baumgardt, H. & Hilker, M. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1520

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    & Makino, J

    Baumgardt, H. & Makino, J. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 227

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    & Freeman, K

    Bekki, K. & Freeman, K. C. 2003, MNRAS, 346, L11

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    W., Koposov, S

    Belokurov, V ., Erkal, D., Evans, N. W., Koposov, S. E., & Deason, A. J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 611

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    W., Irwin, M

    Belokurov, V ., Evans, N. W., Irwin, M. J., Hewett, P. C., & Wilkinson, M. I. 2006, ApJ, 637, L29

    work page 2006

  9. [9]

    & Bovy, J

    Bennett, M. & Bovy, J. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Soci- ety, 482, 1417

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    L., Bertin, G., & Zocchi, A

    Bianchini, P., Varri, A. L., Bertin, G., & Zocchi, A. 2013, ApJ, 772, 67

    work page 2013

  11. [11]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.13254

    Boldrini, P., Di Matteo, P., Laporte, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.13254

    work page arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    & Vitral, E

    Boldrini, P. & Vitral, E. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 1814

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    M., Cautun, M., Deason, A

    Callingham, T. M., Cautun, M., Deason, A. J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 4107 Capuzzo Dolcetta, R., Di Matteo, P., & Miocchi, P. 2005, AJ, 129, 1906

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Carlberg, R. G. 2018, ApJ, 861, 69

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    Carlberg, R. G. 2020, ApJ, 889, 107

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    & Lia, C

    Carraro, G. & Lia, C. 2000, A&A, 357, 977

    work page 2000

  17. [17]

    J., Fattahi, A., Callingham, T

    Carrillo, A., Deason, A. J., Fattahi, A., Callingham, T. M., & Grand, R. J. J. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2165

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    T., et al

    Chun, S.-H., Kim, J.-W., Sohn, S. T., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 606

    work page 2010

  19. [19]

    2020, The Messenger, 180, 10

    Cirasuolo, M., Fairley, A., Rees, P., et al. 2020, The Messenger, 180, 10

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    C., Dotter, A., et al

    Clontz, C., Seth, A. C., Dotter, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 14

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    1999, A&A, 352, 149 Da Costa, G

    Combes, F., Leon, S., & Meylan, G. 1999, A&A, 352, 149 Da Costa, G. S. & Coleman, M. G. 2008, AJ, 136, 506

    work page 1999

  22. [22]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, 5195 de Jong, R

    Das, P., Hawkins, K., & Jofré, P. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 5195 de Jong, R. S., Bellido-Tirado, O., Chiappini, C., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV , ed. I. S

    work page 2020

  23. [23]

    McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 84460T De Silva, G. M., Freeman, K. C., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2604

    work page 2015

  24. [24]

    K., & Rix, H.-W

    Dehnen, W., Odenkirchen, M., Grebel, E. K., & Rix, H.-W. 2004, AJ, 127, 2753

    work page 2004

  25. [25]

    & Belokurov, V

    Erkal, D. & Belokurov, V . 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3542

    work page 2015

  26. [26]

    Fall, S. M. & Zhang, Q. 2001, ApJ, 561, 751 Fernández-Trincado, J. G., Beers, T. C., Minniti, D., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, L4 Fernández-Trincado, J. G., Robin, A. C., Vieira, K., et al. 2015, A&A, 583, A76

    work page 2001

  27. [27]

    2023, A&A, 673, A44

    Ferrone, S., Di Matteo, P., Mastrobuono-Battisti, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A44

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    K., Feltzing, S., Sahlholdt, C

    Feuillet, D. K., Feltzing, S., Sahlholdt, C. L., & Casagrande, L. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 109 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A2 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., ...

    work page 2020

  29. [29]

    Gnedin, O. Y . & Ostriker, J. P. 1997, ApJ, 474, 223

    work page 1997

  30. [30]

    A., Mucciarelli, A., Origlia, L., et al

    Gonzalez, O. A., Mucciarelli, A., Origlia, L., et al. 2020, The Messenger, 180, 18

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    G., Bonifacio, P., Bragaglia, A., et al

    Gratton, R. G., Bonifacio, P., Bragaglia, A., et al. 2001, A&A, 369, 87 GRA VITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, L10

    work page 2001

  32. [32]

    Grillmair, C. J. 1998, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 136, Galactic Halos, ed. D. Zaritsky, 45

    work page 1998

  33. [33]

    J., Freeman, K

    Grillmair, C. J., Freeman, K. C., Irwin, M., & Quinn, P. J. 1995, AJ, 109, 2553

    work page 1995

  34. [34]

    M., Drout, M

    Grondin, S. M., Drout, M. R., Nordhaus, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 102

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    D., et al

    Haywood, M., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 113

    work page 2018

  36. [36]

    H., et al

    Helmi, A., Babusiaux, C., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 85

    work page 2018

  37. [37]

    P., Mackereth, J

    Horta, D., Schiavon, R. P., Mackereth, J. T., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 5671

    work page 2023

  38. [38]

    2021, ApJ, 914, 123

    Ibata, R., Malhan, K., Martin, N., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 123

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    2017, A&A, 604, A106

    Jean-Baptiste, I., Di Matteo, P., Haywood, M., et al. 2017, A&A, 604, A106

    work page 2017

  40. [40]

    C., Dalton, G

    Jin, S., Trager, S. C., Dalton, G. B., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 2688

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    Johnson, C. I. & Pilachowski, C. A. 2010, ApJ, 722, 1373

    work page 2010

  42. [42]

    V ., Spergel, D

    Johnston, K. V ., Spergel, D. N., & Haydn, C. 2002, ApJ, 570, 656

    work page 2002

  43. [43]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 5591

    Kamann, S., Husser, T.-O., Dreizler, S., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 5591

    work page 2018

  44. [44]

    Keenan, D. W. & Innanen, K. A. 1975, AJ, 80, 290

    work page 1975

  45. [45]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., Pfeffer, J. L., Chevance, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2472

    work page 2020

  46. [46]

    2014, A&A, 572, A30 Küpper, A

    Kunder, A., Bono, G., Piffl, T., et al. 2014, A&A, 572, A30 Küpper, A. H. W., Kroupa, P., Baumgardt, H., & Heggie, D. C. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 105

    work page 2014

  47. [47]

    R., Majewski, S

    Law, D. R., Majewski, S. R., Skrutskie, M. F., Carpenter, J. M., & Ayub, H. F. 2003, AJ, 126, 1871

    work page 2003

  48. [48]

    W., Joo, J

    Lee, Y . W., Joo, J. M., Sohn, Y . J., et al. 1999, Nature, 402, 55

    work page 1999

  49. [49]

    2000, A&A, 359, 907

    Leon, S., Meylan, G., & Combes, F. 2000, A&A, 359, 907

    work page 2000

  50. [50]

    Leung, H. W. & Bovy, J. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 2079

    work page 2019

  51. [51]

    E., Battistini, C., et al

    Lind, K., Koposov, S. E., Battistini, C., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, L12

    work page 2015

  52. [52]

    R., Nidever, D

    Majewski, S. R., Nidever, D. L., Smith, V . V ., et al. 2012, ApJ, 747, L37

    work page 2012

  53. [53]

    R., Patterson, R

    Majewski, S. R., Patterson, R. J., Dinescu, D. I., et al. 2000, in Liege Inter- national Astrophysical Colloquia, V ol. 35, Liege International Astrophysical Colloquia, ed. A. Noels, P. Magain, D. Caro, E. Jehin, G. Parmentier, & A. A. Thoul, 619

    work page 2000

  54. [54]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 3809

    Marconi, M., Musella, I., Di Criscienzo, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3809

    work page 2014

  55. [55]

    F., Milone, A

    Marino, A. F., Milone, A. P., Piotto, G., et al. 2011, ApJ, 731, 64

    work page 2011

  56. [56]

    2025, A&A, 697, A8

    Massari, D., Dalessandro, E., Erkal, D., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A8

    work page 2025

  57. [57]

    H., & Helmi, A

    Massari, D., Koppelman, H. H., & Helmi, A. 2019, A&A, 630, L4

    work page 2019

  58. [58]

    2012, A&A, 546, L7

    Mastrobuono-Battisti, A., Di Matteo, P., Montuori, M., & Haywood, M. 2012, A&A, 546, L7

    work page 2012

  59. [59]

    McMillan, P. J. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 76

    work page 2017

  60. [60]

    1997, AJ, 114, 1074

    Merritt, D., Meylan, G., & Mayor, M. 1997, AJ, 114, 1074

    work page 1997

  61. [61]

    & Mayor, M

    Meylan, G. & Mayor, M. 1986, A&A, 166, 122

    work page 1986

  62. [62]

    F., Abadi, M

    Meza, A., Navarro, J. F., Abadi, M. G., & Steinmetz, M. 2005, MNRAS, 359, 93

    work page 2005

  63. [63]

    & Nagai, R

    Miyamoto, M. & Nagai, R. 1975, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 27, 533

    work page 1975

  64. [64]

    2007, ApJ, 659, 1212

    Montuori, M., Capuzzo-Dolcetta, R., Di Matteo, P., Lepinette, A., & Miocchi, P. 2007, ApJ, 659, 1212

    work page 2007

  65. [65]

    2024, A&A, 690, A136

    Mori, A., Di Matteo, P., Salvadori, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A136

    work page 2024

  66. [66]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.13408

    Mori, A., Di Matteo, P., Salvadori, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.13408

    work page arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    C., Evans, N

    Myeong, G. C., Evans, N. W., Belokurov, V ., Sanders, J. L., & Koposov, S. E. 2018, ApJ, 863, L28

    work page 2018

  68. [68]

    C., Vasiliev, E., Iorio, G., Evans, N

    Myeong, G. C., Vasiliev, E., Iorio, G., Evans, N. W., & Belokurov, V . 2019, MNRAS, 488, 1235

    work page 2019

  69. [69]

    P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al

    Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 48

    work page 2020

  70. [70]

    2025, ApJ, 982, L14

    Nandakumar, G., Ryde, N., Schultheis, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 982, L14

    work page 2025

  71. [71]

    Navarrete, C., Belokurov, V ., & Koposov, S. E. 2017, ApJ, 841, L23

    work page 2017

  72. [72]

    Nissen, P. E. & Schuster, W. J. 2010, A&A, 511, L10

    work page 2010

  73. [73]

    S., Neumayer, N., Clontz, C., et al

    Nitschai, M. S., Neumayer, N., Clontz, C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 8

    work page 2023

  74. [74]

    E., Freeman, K

    Norris, J. E., Freeman, K. C., Mayor, M., & Seitzer, P. 1997, ApJ, 487, L187

    work page 1997

  75. [75]

    K., Dehnen, W., et al

    Odenkirchen, M., Grebel, E. K., Dehnen, W., et al. 2003, AJ, 126, 2385

    work page 2003

  76. [76]

    K., Rockosi, C

    Odenkirchen, M., Grebel, E. K., Rockosi, C. M., et al. 2001, ApJ, 548, L165

    work page 2001

  77. [77]

    Oh, K. S. & Lin, D. N. C. 1992, ApJ, 386, 519

    work page 1992

  78. [78]

    2025, A&A, 693, A155

    Pagnini, G., Di Matteo, P., Haywood, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A155

    work page 2025

  79. [79]

    2023, A&A, 673, A86

    Pagnini, G., Di Matteo, P., Khoperskov, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A86

    work page 2023

  80. [80]

    R., & Bellazzini, M

    Pancino, E., Galfo, A., Ferraro, F. R., & Bellazzini, M. 2007, ApJ, 661, L155

    work page 2007

Showing first 80 references.